Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis.


Journal

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 24 7 2020
medline: 24 7 2020
entrez: 24 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRIMUS] >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2. Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites. In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32701437
pii: cuaj.6712
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6712
pmc: PMC7769516
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

E11-E16

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn

Références

Radiology. 2016 Sep;280(3):793-804
pubmed: 27035179
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Nov;84(11):2522-2534
pubmed: 30032482
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Jul;44(7):1341-1354
pubmed: 29627083
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):721-722
pubmed: 30563723
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;21(5):382-4
pubmed: 26200484
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018 Nov;21(4):473-487
pubmed: 30104656
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar;23(1):88-93
pubmed: 31239513
J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):562-9
pubmed: 26791931

Auteurs

Laurence Klotz (L)

Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Giovanni Lughezzani (G)

Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.

Davide Maffei (D)

Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.

Andrea Sánchez (A)

Urología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.

José Gregorio Pereira (JG)

Urología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.

Frédéric Staerman (F)

Polyclinique Reims-Bezannes, Bezannes, France.

Hannes Cash (H)

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Ferdinand Luger (F)

Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.

Laurent Lopez (L)

Groupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.

Rafael Sanchez-Salas (R)

Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Rob Abouassaly (R)

Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.

Neal D Shore (ND)

Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, United States.

Gregg Eure (G)

Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, VA, United States.

Marco Paciotti (M)

Instituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy.

Ander Astobieta (A)

Urología Clínica, Clínica IMQ Zorrotzaurre, Spain.

Laura Wiemer (L)

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Sebastian Hofbauer (S)

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Robin Heckmann (R)

Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Andreas Gusenleitner (A)

Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.

Jasmin Kaar (J)

Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.

Clemens Mayr (C)

Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.

Wolfgang Loidl (W)

Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern Linz, Austria.

Jean Rouffilange (J)

Groupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.

Richard Gaston (R)

Groupe Urologie Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.

Xavier Cathelineau (X)

Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Eric Klein (E)

Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, United States.

Classifications MeSH